Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura/Archive 1

Archive 1

English dub

Can users try to shed light on the UK/Austrila dub please as the arctle and links seem baised towards the orginal and US versions (in a way that the other dubs are obscure). I will post some links soon. -Dynamo_ace

I have made the amendments, please wikify the changes and comment on the ammendments here, thank you--Dynamo_ace 15:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I know we are trying to put up an episode guide like in other animation articles but the senstivtiy of the anime (due to poor distabuation etc.) could render this article baised without anyone knowing. Lets just keep a Japanesse episode guide up for now until there has been full research and understanding into the english dub.

Even so, if we did an english dub episode list, we would have to do the same for other natinaoltys which could overload the page, so i suggest we don't include one at all. -Dynamo_ace Talk 29th December 2005

The other option would be seperate articles for Cardcaptor Sakura and Cardcaptors.. Shiroi Hane 18:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CCS Characters?

Referring to User:Melesse's change, does "Characters" really need to be separated out into its own page? I know the characters list is long, but I don't think it particularly warrants separating out. Would you mind if I moved it back to how it was? --Jonathan Drain 01:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Kero has a New York accsent in the english dub as the voiceover (Matt Hill) is from Canada, futher more his voice could be unique like Joe Pasquile. Could be wrong, but in any case, more work needed on that topic -Dynamo_ace

Found out from a CCS fansite that the Osakan dialect is like Canda's Newfoundland dialect. Could that help distingish kero's dub dialect? --Dynamo_ace 22:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually an Osakan dilect could be intrpreted as the equivlant of a US Southern Accent in anime or a New York accent in manga. My eyes see all 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Censored in Israel?

I listed that this anime was broadcasted in Israel in it's uncensored form, but someone keeps writing it WAS censored. What gives? I'm sure it's not censored.

I'm sure that there was censorship in the israeli version! Why you are sure that There was no censorship in the israeli version? Toya 17:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, none of the names were changed, and all the diffrent romance sub-plots still existed.

There was censorship! Not many censorship like in U.S.A., but there was! Believe me, i know about that more than you. Toya 18:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but I'll add "With slight censorship".

Wait, are you sure you don't want to mention something like "Burden of proof" to this fellow? We don't want unsourced statements, after all

Mass vandalism

Vandlism corrected on 20:16 (GMT) 20 september 2005. Vandal's intentions are to possbliy flame CC and degrade article. Can the vandal please do his\her homework!--Dynamo_ace 19:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that all of edits would constitute as vandalism, specifically the lines noting Li/Lee's name change and the fact that Meiling was a character made specifically for the anime. --155.246.15.34 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, All the edits the vandel did were dilibratly degrading the quility of the artilcle (by dilibratly making spelling mistakes and other naming mistakes in the artilcle and by remove 3 external links in the article (2 of which are non-flame CC sites.))Also, there was already a line stating that Meiling was a anime-only character. --Dynamo_ace 11:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I still think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article the fact that Li's name was changed to Lee in the english dub. And do we really need links to five or six different fansites? Can we cut it down to two or three?--155.246.15.34 01:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that we need the list of fansites to repesent both CCS and CC in all prespectives. And other wikipedia articles have more than 4 links, so there is no problems.

Also, don't trust subtitles (i suspect that the reason you think Li's name is Lee. Subtilite companies employed by the TV networks have a tendency to make errors, especially in names,due to the fact they don't have much time to annoate the program. It is not like in Movies where companies like SDI media can correct mistakes before it is put onto DVD. --Dynamo_ace 08:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The vandal has reverted to his vandelised copy. This was fixed at 19:02 (GMT) on 26 Septmeber 2005. The vandel is anoyomous with a IP address of 84.93.64.55. This is your final warning vandel, attempt to vandilise the arctile for the purposes of flaming and degrading and you will be put forth to the admins and possibly banned. A cool off of this article is also being consedered.--Dynamo_ace 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a list of names changes on the http://www.clowbook.com/ (official Nelvana site) (spellings are all their's, not mine):

• Sakura Kinomoto > Sakura Avalon
• Kero > Kero
• Li Shaoran > Li Showron
• Tomoyo Daidoji > Madison Taylor
• Toya Kinomoto > Tori Avalon
• Yukito Ysukishiro [sic] > Julian Star
• Mei Lin Li > Meilin Rae
• Kaho Mitsuki > Layla Mackenzie
• Rika Sasaki > Rita
• Naoko Yanagizawa > Nikki
• Chiharu Mihara > Chelsea
• Fujitaka Kinomoto > Aiden Avalon
• Yamazaki > Zachary
• Nadesiko Kinomoto > Natasha Avalon

Shiroi Hane 07:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Touya/Toya/Tōya

Any chance we could have some sort of consensus on this? Shiroi Hane 07:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I go for Toya. And no, we don't care about "accuracy" of a romanization ('sides, Touya is not really any more accurate than Toya). TOKYOPOP and Geneon use Toya. WhisperToMe 06:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what about Clow Read/Clow Reed?Michael Hopcroft 10:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Names

Assuming it's not just my browser, something seems to have gone wrong with the romaji (pinyin?) entries for Syaoran, Yue and Meiling. Shiroi Hane 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rika & Terada

The manga states that they intend to marry when she is of age, but I can't recall it ever being stated that they do marry (for one thing.. the story ends while she's still in school) Shiroi Hane 08:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat in agreement on this point, actually. And speaking of which, I am wondering whether a separate article is appropriate to deal with the Cardcaptors alterations and the elements of the CCS story that raised controversy (such as this subplot, Kaho's relationships with Toya and Eriol, etc.)Michael Hopcroft 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's risky, and could end up having an American bias, Wikipedia isn't the USA's unbaised encyclopedia, it the English speaking lanuage's unbaised encyclopedia. That means its for the USA,UK, Austrila etc. -Dynamo_ace Talk

I still think there's grounds for two seperate English-language articles - one for Cardcaptors (the Nelvana dub) and one for Cardcaptor Sakura (the Geneon subbed DVDs and Tokyopop manga) since there are a number of differences between the two. Shiroi Hane 10:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think then there will be two sensitive articles (articles which are prone to being POV or vandilised, in fact there should be a template warning people when they see such articles), and that would mean two articles to monitor for vandilsm and POV, which could make its stressfull. This encylopedia has had more than its fair share of stick from the media, i would hate to see it get more stick just because some flamers of a certian anime want it their way. This is a neutral encylopedia, splitting the article into two would just be asking for trouble.

I think we should either put this to a vote or leave it as it is (with or without the idea of implementing a senstive article warning template). -Dynamo_ace Talk

That wasn't exactly what I was talking about. When Cardcaptors came out there was a major controversy among CLAMP fans about the heavy censorship of CCS, while on the other side were advocates saying that CCS should not have been imported at all. I was thinking the article in question would be a discussion of the controversies specifically. I was going to write a little bit on that, but I figured I would get some input on whether there would be the sort of major vandalism problems people have been talking about. Michael Hopcroft (Please sign your post)

We have been getting degrading of articles, invaild infomation, US epsiode lists (Not that that is vandlism), and unbalanced and baised infomation about the dub. That's the main problems we have had in my opion.

Before we contiune we need other user's experances with the article (check the history logs for detials) -Dynamo_ace Talk

Character Page

The article is looking rather long. May I make a suggest that CCS takes a page from the X/1999 page and set up a new page for the characters? 24.81.147.137 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Revamp (02/2006 - 04/2006)

Revised the whole article, primarily fixing grammar, sentence structure, and overall continuity. Some of the plot synopsis has been rewritten as a result. Will try to revise all the sub-articles (i.e. those of all characters, including writing the character articles that don't exist yet) in the near future.

This series has been taken off American TV, and DVD sales have gone their course (though there has recently been a new box set release; it's very pretty and equally as expensive), so this article's "flame war" tendencies seemed to have lessened. (I suppose everyone is going to rant about Naruto nowadays), so CCS can sit in peace with its true fans as it turns 10 this year.

--Crisu 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, Nevlda is still accuseed for something they havn't done, all curtosy of poor distbuation (which again, i won't go into due to the fact this is a neutral encylopedia). And who are its true fans, do they include CC fans who saw the dub (regardless of form) and liked it?

It is far from over and i have a feeling it only going to get worse. -Dynamo_ace Talk

I'm trying to find a more neutral ground on everything here. Pressed for time, but I'm working on it. For now, the biggest thing I've figured out is that there is a huge difference between the US English dub and the English dub everyone else (like in the UK) sees. Apparently, the UK one is better, while the US one is the really choppy one everyone hates. So I'll do that research and see what comes out of it. --Crisu 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Experimentation with Cardcaptors info and synopsis

Okay, I want to try something out. I understand Dynamo_ace's point that perhaps this article should pay a little more attention to Cardcaptors. It could in one way be viewed as a separate show almost. But in any case, I think that more information should be given about it than just "compared to CCS, Cardcaptors is _____." So I spread out the information in the Cardcaptors section a little bit, making the positive part of the section a little more visible.

And I'm experimenting with adding a Plot Synopsis section specifically for the dub. I'm not sure if that's the best idea or if a "Plot Differences" section would be best. I'd rather go with the synopsis, since more dub-specific information can be included there. (Like the "Expect the unexpected" quote. I think that's an important part of the dub.) But I don't want to repeat myself since the major card capturing plot is essentially the same as in the Japanese version. ..So I wrote a little stub for now, and if you guys like it, I'll expand it. But if not, we'll find another way.

--Crisu 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Character list and Episode articles

I've finished deprecating the Cardcaptor Sakura characters page. It now redirects here, as every character that was described on that list now has his or her own article. So in the characters section here, I've made a two-column list of characters. I debated making a third column, but I don't know if that would go beyond most people's resolutions.

Also I hope my sorting of the names is agreeable. If anyone has a better layout, then make sure you include enough < br > tags to make the lists have equal amounts of lines and align properly.

The Maki Matsumoto article will be written soon. And my next project after that: articles for all 70 episodes. I'm seeing other TV shows have them, so why can't CCS?

--Crisu 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See my replies on this talk page about the english dub. The trouble is that CCS is too senstivite ,curtiosy of flammers and those who i won't comment about because this is Wikipeida, and following major vandism incidnets over the past few months we can ill-aforad having infomation without enough sources to back up or balance with.

Though i have noticed a spoken word version hasn't been done. Maybe that should be considered. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Well, my sources would be the episodes themselves; I'll try to write everything as objective as possible, so there won't be any arguments. I'll be writing synopses based on the original Japanese episodes, though, as those are all I have. Someone with extensive knowledge of the dub can add to the articles as I get them up (this will take quite a long time to do, myself, anyway). I'm not afraid of flamers or vandals; they won't win because there are more of us dedicated to keeping the information accurate.

What do you mean by a 'spoken word version'? I'm going to try writing synopses in a technical fashion. I'm going to initially reference episode articles from other series (like The Boy in the Iceberg, Christmas Who?, and Chef Aid, for example) while trying to find my own style for CCS episodes. There are episode summmaries written by Peacewish at http://kss.mysticalaura.com/tv/main.php?page=japepguide, but they are written in a novelized (fanfic) form, so they wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't plan on directly referencing those as much, but I do know they exist (and I have used them before for my own personal research).

--Crisu 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE do not make articles for each episode. I know we've been seeing this a lot on Wikipedia, but it is STRONGLY discouraged. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Trivia. Wikipedia is not here to retell the story of CCS. Fictional story entries in an encyclopedia are only supposed to give a small over-view. Many wikipedias are working to try to reduce and stop individual episode articles for most shows, as they are just too trivial and are needlessly detailed. Wikipedia is not a dumb-all-ground for everything and anything. -- Ned Scott 20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

...Meh, okay. I won't write them. It makes me a sad that the upper limit for CCS information has to be set so low (in my opinion, I suppose), but I understand your point. I hope you don't similarly disapprove of the character articles I recently wrote, as I do want to keep them around and work on making them properly notable. --Crisu 00:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to see more info, but there's only so many times you can retell a story. I think where our real opportunity is to try to find and locate CLAMP, writer, director, etc notes on the series and gain further insight on the series rather than just saying what happened. Such things as further insight to inspirations on the characters, what the people who worked on the characters thought of the story, etc. Although, there are some very significant places in CCS where a form of retelling would be appropriate. I just don't think it would be wise for each episode to be like that. I think it would tempt too many people to put ill-relevant information in. Maybe a Detailed plot summary article of sorts could work?-- Ned Scott 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes and a wonderful gift of concise episode write-ups from a friend, I'm ready to get this miniproject going again. There's not enough info for 70 articles, but I think I can do 7 or 8, splitting some seasons in half or more because of article length. Hopefully over time, I can find broadcasting information, so the episode articles can better follow the discussion's guidelines. --Crisu 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as expansion goes, I think we could use at least one more character page for brief descriptions of some of the guest characters, at least the ones mentioned in the Japanese article: Masaki Amamiya, Tomoyo's bodyguards, Wei Wang, Yuuki Tachibana, Yoko Nakagawa, Akane, and Rei Tachibana. Maybe descriptions of important characters in the first movie as well (Madoushi and Li Yelan). --EmperorBrandon 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the initial formatting for the episode articles I'm coding: Sakura Card Arc: 47-59. That's the only one up so far. We can move discussion to that article's Talk page to save room here. And Brandon, should we list them under "additional characters" (or some other term)? I may merge Maki's article into that, but I want Rika's, Chiharu's, Naoko's, etc. to stay. ^^;; --Crisu 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Minor characters" would be (I'm guessing...) the most consistent term. The first movie characters I mentioned aren't really "minor" in the scope of the movie, but unless the movie gets its own article, would probably be the best place to put them. --EmperorBrandon 07:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cardcaptors on Toonami

Cardcaptors did air on Toonami. It was very brief--maybe four or six weeks over the summer--so I suppose people who missed it would never know it was there. I remember watching it on TV firsthand (and upset that the American dub made its way to Toonami), too.

Here: http://dl.toonamiarsenal.com/download.php?site=tda&fid=000223

It's a .mov file from here: http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/main.php

P.S. Can some of this old discussion be archived or deleted? The page is getting kind of long and superfluous. Except for the Touya/Toya issue, some of the other topics have been addressed already. --Crisu 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Around what date was it aired? The League of Crazy Men 09:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the video, Toonami began airing it on 4 June, and the year was 2001. I just edited the main article to reflect some information that's on the CCS media information article. I should get around to synchronizing those two articles. --Crisu 13:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

my bad, sorry. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. ^_^ At least the promo made the show look good, I guess. --Crisu 13:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually first got into Cardcaptors through the airing on Toonami (was much more convenient for me to catch it in the afternoon than in the morning), so I can definitely back up its existence, short as it was. It was only the first 17 episodes in the WB order, and they went through them twice I think (or maybe just once, my memory not totally clear) I went straight to collecting CCS after that and avoided seeing any of the later episodes of the Cardcaptors adaptation. EmperorBrandon 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Shiroi Hane, for the talk page adjustment! --Crisu 13:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Purachina

Asking for everyone's opinion on the Purachina article. It's been isolated for a while, and I haven't decided whether I should list it for deletion or not. The article currently doesn't say much, and I don't know if it could be made into something notable. As far as CCS is concerned, it's just an opening theme. So if it could be salvaged primarily as a Maaya Sakamoto single, then that'd be good. --Crisu 06:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Noting that the article was deleted per AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purachina -- Ned Scott 06:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

E&T Pairing

The E&T Pairing article is another one I'd really like to get rid of, but that just might be my slightly biased opinion alone. Since it has a generally small fanbase, I don't know if it should be included in the template (see below) or well.. even kept alive. Same thing with the Purachina article. --Crisu 17:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is now AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E%26T_Pairing --Crisu 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CCS Template

Inspired from discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga, I've written a template that will soon be placed on all CCS articles. Though I suppose I can just go ahead and do it, I thought it'd be nice to poll everyone first on their opinions of the current layout.

I'm not 100% happy on where I've placed everyone's names, but right now I can't come up with anything better (that also saves space). --Crisu 17:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a good template, if you are looking for ideas check out the Ah! My goddess! articles. Cool Cat and other wikipedians have implemented several different types of templates for navagating around the article set. -Dynamo_ace Talk

I like it. -- Ned Scott 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is a template really necessary? You need to edit it a bit more. Some of the names don't fit the respective descriptions.

Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed on the Wikiproject talk page that CCS had enough articles to have a decent template. And I did mention earlier how I'm not completely satisfied with the name placement, so the template is open to suggestions or rearrangements from anybody. I'd like to put Yukito and Eriol in a better place, but I don't know exactly how to do it without miscategorizing other characters in the process or making the template too large. --Crisu 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How would this look. If your having trouble adjusting the settings you could use a design similar to this. Is it any good?

Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's another possible organization, yes, but now you're going to get into arguments as to who is major and who isn't. You count Yue as major, but I think he appears less often than Eriol, who dominates in his role more than Yue in his. Then you get into whether Yue and Yukito should be kept in the same category or not. Or even Yue and Kero; Yue plays a much more minor role when compared to Kero, but it doesn't look right when you separate the two. It's .. aggravatingly challenging; I could ramble on about details. Perhaps the last resort solution is just to list everybody alphabetically, making it entirely neutral, but that's just .. not pretty. I still like mine better, though. It's not about size, as I think yours could be compacted down to equal mine once the margins are tweaked. But aside from the odd placement of Eriol, Yukito, and perhaps even Kaho, what I have at least generalizes them away from the major/supporting/minor debate.

In my drafts, I had an "Adults:" category so I could group Maki in with Terada and Kaho. But Kaho's tricky because she has an involvement in the magical plot. --Crisu 07:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget the placement i've put Yue and seveal characters in for a moment. I will not argue as to who is a major or minor charcter is. It was just a rough design. The actual template is what i wanted you to see.

If you think the above appears to controversial how would this look instead? I think it might be to big.

Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 10:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the current template being used, myself. -- Ned Scott 11:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're considering the template layout alone, then absolutely no. Now it looks like every other anime template--kinda boring. While I'll accept a simple but useful template over a pretty yet illegible one, I wanted to make a compromise or get as dynamic as I can without confusing the reader. So I wanted to avoid just listing everything in rows, as they become hard to read after a certain length (e.g. Template:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion and Template:Sailor_Moon). I made the family categories, so I could eliminate some last names from links and save space. And the links in the leftmost cell show how vertical lists are just easier to look at (they take up less local space). --Crisu 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh! I give up.

Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I do like the current one and I would be more than happy to help you with putting these on every page, just give me an idea of how you did it and i'll figure it out.RecklessFire 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I've already inserted them on every page a day ago. But you would just add {{Cardcaptor Sakura}} to make it appear. --Crisu 04:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Crisu's original template. It has a good layout. --Squilibob 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

I am getting sick of seeing links to CC flamesites (Or CCS fansites with CC flaming) on this article, if this doesn't change, i will have to impose a crtiera for sites that can added to these articles. -Dynamo_ace Talk

I haven't visited every part of that site you removed, but from what I can tell it has a great amount of information. I was not able to find any "flame" on this site. Being critical of the edits is not the same as flaming, which just rip on something for the sake of ripping on it and not backing up information. I have reverted your removal, unless you can direct me towards the part of the site that seems to have you all upset. And since when do you alone decide what gets placed as links to these articles? Wouldn't such a thing be decided by consensus? -- Ned Scott 11:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Look under TV section then CCS\CC Differences i think, thats where you will find it i think.

I aplogize for my anger, but it is 10 years now since CCS has been launched and it seems some people still have not done their homework! --Dynamo_ace Talk

I still agree with Ned. Yes, there's a bias, but a majority of the page still remains relatively informative. In addition, it's a single page out of many (with lots of information) that the site has to offer; you're blowing it out of proprotion a little. Contents of the dub aren't ignored (unlike a flame site), as there are episode summaries, DVD covers, and song lyrics. Keep in mind that the dub is pretty much gone in America, and our only memory of it is the U.S.-cut version (until I started Wiki earlier this year, I had no idea Nelvana actually dubbed the whole thing). So consequently you'll have many English sites get biased about it. They'll move from the U.S. adaptation to the original version and not need to look back. You were fortunate enough to grow up with the real dub; you had the better first impression. Sure I'd like, too, for America to get to learn about the real dub (as I want to watch it, too, now), but because of some decision in the past to release the adaptation, I don't know if it will ever happen. --Crisu 17:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

All we can do is try and tell them and show them the place to obtain the episodes. Sadly, the link i would provide might be considered linkspam or a violation of wikipeida's rules but it might just fill the balance a bit. --Dynamo_ace Talk

Would it be linkspam? It could replace the Asian-stuff.com review; I've never been sure why it's there (as it is just a review while the other sites have real content). And as you say, the link can be justified as being dub-supportive, since we have a good number of original-series-specific links and need more dub ones. --Crisu 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a way to link to books that lets you choose from a list of online stores, so that no single store gets the "advertisement". Wikipedia:Book sources. Maybe there's a way we can use this for DVDs, since many of those same web sites also have DVDs on their stores, or perhaps suggest this for future wiki development. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, this link i was thinking, is (as well as dub-supportive) an anime download site that offers the episodes (as well a possibly a chance of offering a CCS fandub). Thats why i am concerned it won't go down well in Wikipedia (dispite the fact there are some links of similar nature).--Dynamo_ace Talk

Article link audit

In response to the need for a cleanup on the links section to this article, i have done a quick audit on what could stay and what should be removed.

• Card Captor Sakura at the Open Directory Project (http://dmoz.org/Arts/Animation/Anime/Titles/C/Card_Captor_Sakura/) - contains sites which have false or baised infomation. Recomand a better DMOZ link or removal.
• On-line Card Captor Sakura encyclopedia (http://www.usagi.org/~doi/sakura/) - despite some unusual entries this site is good enough and unbaised enough to be accepted.
• Clow Legacy (http://www.tsubasachronicle.net/) - This is not a CCS site and should be removed.
• Card Captor Science Theater 3000 (http://cardcaptor_schlueter.tripod.com/) - Its OK for what it is supposed to be
• Cardcaptor Sakura Lyrics & Translations (http://freckle.tenkeimedia.com/nl/ccs/index.html) - Acceptable refrence site
• SLG CCS Network (http://www.suppi.net/slg/) - This is a flame site and should be removed.
• Kawaii Sakura Shrine (http://kss.mysticalaura.com/) - Site is acceptable
• Cherry Blossom festival (http://www.strictlyshoujo.com/cardcaptor/) - Contains a flame article, effectivly making it a flame site.
• Michael's Cardcaptors (http://www.michaelsfavorites.com/home1.html) - Good neutral site, though latest distubation infomation might be misleading.
• Sakura's BME clinic (http://sakurabme.com/en)

I would like to say that this website: * Clow Legacy (http://www.tsubasachronicle.net/) is a Cardcaptor Sakura site because there's a section for Cardcaptor Sakura and it is right here. (http://www.tsubasachronicle.net/ccs/)Samantha Lim88 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only official sites are accepted. TsubasaChronicle.net is not an official site, so it does not belong in the article. Jezebel Parks 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mention of lolicon

I realize the article has an unsited sources notice, but this line really bothers me: Due in part to its animation and characterization, Cardcaptor Sakura has a wide fanbase on the Internet, particularly in the yaoi, shōjo, yuri and lolicon fandom. I worry that the inclusion of lolicon, a small subset of anime fandom, may turn people off to the show and give the wrong impression, especially mentioning it in the first section. My understanding was that the anime in particular was targeted at children, and I know the show has been recommended in the past for younger viewers outside of Japan as well. A similar show, Pretty Cure, which has a yuri/lolicon fanbase makes no mention of this at all. In conclusion, is there a source for this? 69.12.130.233 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would remove that line entirely. A lot of series have gained a lolicon/yuri/yaoi/etc fanbase, but that hardly represents encyclopedic information on the series itself. I don't think the sexual inclinations of some fans bear mentioning when introducing a children's show. --80.182.93.115 14:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be taken out, it's not neccessary, especially for a children's show. Pretty much any anime featuring underage girls can have lolicon-fandom. --58.168.201.152 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed, but not because it's a kids show, but because any cute moe girl can be a target for lolificiation. Although, pedobear still approves. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whaaat?

This page has disappeared and been replaced with a message that says "Hinomaru" and a picture of the Japanese flag-- I'm assuming no one will be bothered if I attempt to restore the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJSoulma (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Fixed

Okay, I just copied and pasted the last version before this one into the edit-- should be okay now. If anyone takes issue, fixing it further would probably be the best course of action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJSoulma (talk • contribs).

Looks like you've got it under control, thanks. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Real world info

Right now we don't have a lot of real world info, but we actually have tons of it available. There's tons of articles, interviews, reviews, etc about CCS, and about individual characters and concepts. Normally I'd suggest cutting a lot of "plot only stuff", but I think it will all be justified once we get some of the real-world/reception/etc information in these articles. I think we should start to compile a list of sources for this content on the talk page, anything you can find, interviews, commentary, etc. We've got some great articles here, and it's time we made them even better. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thematic Questions -- How Encyclopedic?

I have noticed a total absence in the main series article of discussions of the prominent themes of the seres -- concepts like "The One You Like Best" and how much of the series (especially Volume 12 of the manga) seems to revolve around the questiom of what love is and how many different forms it takes. On one hand, this would be a great help in placing the series within its context, but since it is as much literary cirtiicsm as statement of fact one wonders whether it would be considered encyclopedic enough. (I've run into trouble on that before). So I would like some guidance. Michael Hopcroft 03:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Such an addition would be considered original research and therefore should be avoided, as original research or one's personal opinions should not be added to articles. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you would want to post or discuss this since all the old CCS forums have died out due to the age of the series. If you noticed, we do have some light analysis of the relationships of the characters which is a little bit thematic, seeming self-evident and therefore acceptable. --Charizardpal 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Licensors - why are they removed?

There is one thing I don't understand - some time ago, I had made the licensor entries in the infobox, and for some reason they have been removed. Why the heck is this? The entry 'licensor' is a valid entry and all I want is to place it. So why are the entries of the licensors - Geneon and Nelvana - continually removed when they belond in the infobox? Elwin Blaine Coldiron 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was just some minor confusion. The editor who removed it thought the licensor entry only applied to Cardcaptors, an edited version of CCS, but it applies to both. I've restored the edit. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CCS artbooks and related ones...

Where shall I put the information? I'm not quite sure...

Samantha Lim88 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good question.. How many of such books are there? -- Ned Scott 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's 3 artbooks and 3 anime artbooks.
Samantha Lim88 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, under the Manga section seems like a close-match for that information. --Charizardpal 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pushing the article to A-class!

Hey, we need to push it to an A-class article! Can someone help? The media info CCS isn't enough. We need info about the video game... There's much more things to do.

Samantha Lim88 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I put all the info about the Drama CDs, soundtracks.... in List of Cardcaptor Sakura albums.

The Lost Video Diaries

There used to be a reference to the video diaries on the first page; now that it's been removed its difficult to find out how many mini-omake (and audio-only drama CDS) were released on CD's. Could someone find the old article (I assume this list has been moved to another page), and post a hyperlink somewhere on the first page. (I think posting it right after the last Sakura arc would do well, but don't put it under the soundtrack page without making a reference to it it on the main Article page, since that'll just confuse readers.) --Charizardpal 00:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about those. Interestingly enough, they're not included on the DVDs, but I have seen them before. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen 3 of them available on youtube, but there may be more. --Charizardpal 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Power

Right now I'm discussing the special attributes of the celestrial elements which the cards fall under. This is seldom discussed, and if I find any citable information I'll add it. It's interesting that unlike in most fantasy series, the elemental cards (Chinese and Greek) both fall under jurisdiction of the Sun, Moon cards. As when Sakura's wood and wind cards (Chinese, and Greek/Chinese) are both deflected during final Judgement by Yue on the basis that they fall under his Jurisdiction as the Moon Guardian.

I don't know how to include this in the article, but so far these are the characters that I've discovered: Sun-Kero, Spinel, Clow Reed (Sakura, 1st-2nd seasons?) Moon-Yue, Touya, Ruby Moon, Clow Reed, Syaron Stars-Sakura in the 3rd season Darkness-Eriol (Clow Reed's reincarnation)

(There may still be others, for example, I'm not sure which element the sorceress from the 1st movie used. It does seem that more people draw from the moon element than any other element.) --Charizardpal 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Sakura has the powers of the moon, sun, dark, and the stars. When she uses the sealing wand, she says "Key that hides the power of the DARK". She can also use cards that are under sun and moon jurisdiction, so she has power over all of them? Greyface 00:51, 17 September 2007

Shaoran's sisters

Their names appear on the cast of Cardcaptor Sakura: The Movie, where they are listed for dubbing credits. Here the page: Cardcaptor Sakura: The Movie on Imdb. I'm pretty sure they can be considered part of the canon, but you can discuss it here. --85.18.136.105 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

Portions of “Title names”, “Broadcasting”, “Intros” and “Voice casts” came from Michael’s Cardcaptors. --Dynamo_ace 12:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

MOVIES INFO

I must insist on gathering more information about the two movies, perhaps even creating a new page for them. Thank you.

I can supply more information if needed. P.S. don't forget to sign post.Jeffrey G. Conflict 2552 Producer 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidcoast (talk • contribs)

The movies are not notable enough to have their own pages. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if we had enough information to justify some "sub articles" for the movies, but all they would be at this point is plot summaries. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There actual are articles for both movies, and all they contain are very long plot summaries. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges

It was proposed in February that the media list and Cardcaptors be merged back into the articles. No discussion was every started here, though informal consensus in the project is that the merges will be done. If anyone else wishes to weigh in, please do so, or the merges will be done soon. These merges are highly appropriate as the current splits go against our MoS and do not lend themselves to well formed articles. This is also in keeping with what the project is currently doing in other similar articles, with the most recent example being Tokyo Mew Mew, which has undergone two similar merges and is of a very similar nature in terms of issues with with English release and bad article formats as Cardcaptor Sakura is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Cardcaptor Sakura has a ridiculous number of character articles – 22, and those are just the ones the Navbox links to (though I don't actually know if there are any others) – but no central character list. These pages really need to be merged, if anyone wants to undertake the job. —Dinoguy1000 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely and 100% agree. If no one gets to it, CCS is on my list to deal with after I finish Tokyo Mew Mew, both of which had a lot of similar issues (including unnecessary split of English dub and original, had no main character, etc.). Certainly wouldn't mind help if anyone wants to start some of the initial work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against a character list, however, if we're talking about making 'merges' I want it to be perfectly clear that the character pages themselves should stay, at least for the major characters. Several other series have both a character list in addition to individual character pages (including Tokyo Mew Mew mentioned by AnmaFinotera), and I see no reason why CCS should not be able to do the same. 3loodlust (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not saying there is no room for individual character articles. I understand perfectly well the need for individual articles covering the main characters in a series – however, this is contingent on the existence of sufficient verifiable real-world information from reliable sources. I haven't actually looked at any of the articles (I don't usually have sufficient time for that type of stuff), so I couldn't say whether any of the main CCS character articles could survive an AfD, which these are certainly ripe for. It's perfectly fine to merge all the pages into a single list, clean up, expand, and source the information, and then break out the information for those major characters that have enough. —Dinoguy1000 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew only has some for a short while longer. All are being merged in. However, as Dino has noted, for CCS it is highly likely that Sakura, if none of the others, are very likely to able to meet WP:FICT. Some, however, it is very clear will never meet WP:FICT and just be straight merged. For the rest, we can either merge, then look for break outs, or in the case of Sakura, leave out and tag for notability with a note that it needs to be brought up to snuff. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yue

I know Wikipedia is all "we luv spoilers" these days, but I strongly feel that it's inappropriate to have such a huge spoiler as Yue's true identity revealed in the chart of characters, which is a part of the article readers should expect to be able to read without having anything spoiled for them. Therefore instead of "Yue (Yukito)" as it was, I've moved Yukito to the "other characters" section. 91.107.148.232 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree on this decision because through out the entire series he plays his own part in the show.Jeffrey G. Conflict 2552 Producer 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be undone. It is not appropriate decision at all. We do not hide spoilers, period. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's silly, they are sperate people after all. I personally think it's silly that Wiki changed their stance on spoilers since most spoilers can make or break a person's experience with a show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.87.160 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not "separate people" and it is a very important point of the story. If people don't want to be spoiled, they shouldn't be reading about the series on websites, especially not an encyclopedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera is right; by looking up the information in an encyclopedia, they’re consenting to any spoilers that may be found there. As for the other comments, is this really the place to debate whether or not Yue and Yukito are separate? I think that discussion should take place on one of their respective talk pages.-3loodlust (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Its been discussed as part of the discussion of merging Yue and Yukito's pages. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right; we did touch on the subject. I guess I'd forgotten :). Not sure that there was any definite conclusion drawn, though. -3loodlust (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keroberos name fixing

I believe the article Cerberus (Cardcaptor Sakura) needs to be renamed to use the official English name of Keroberos, as per our MoS. Kero is named Keroberos in both the English release manga by Tokyopop and the Geneon anime releases. He is also named Keroberos in the Cardcaptors dub. This, to me, is overwhelming support for using Keroberos for the article name. Google hits also support that Keroberos is the most commonly used name, with nearly 17500 hits for Keroberos "Cardcaptor Sakura" versus 12400 for Cerberus "Cardcaptor Sakura" and 821 for Kerberos "Cardcaptor Sakura" I can see no real reason or purpose for using Cerberus except to try to tie it to the Greek mythology (currently unsourced theory in the main article). If the article is renamed, of course all instances with in the CCS articles should also be fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the statement from the article that "The older TOKYOPOP releases of the manga render his name as 'Keroberos,' but this was changed in later printings to 'Cerberus.'" is true, then that would be a good sign that it was a translation error they later corrected. --erachima talk 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source on that, since I have the last printings of the series and it uses Keroberos throughout. The only other places I see making such a claim is TV.com from the user edited section, which is word from word from ours so someone pasted from one to the other. Nothing on the Tokyopop supports the claim, as they use Kero when referring to him in descriptions and no press releases about "fixing the name" in the reissue. Seems like nothing but fan rumor to me. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that in the original Tokyopop release the name was spelled differently, however in recent printings, numerous additions have been made "to better reflect CLAMP's intentions" including changing the name's spelling to 'Cerberus'. Also, while the spelling could be changed to 'Kerberos' and still be technically correct, the spelling 'Keroberos' is not accurate. The katakana of the characters name in the original release in Japan is [ケルベロス (Keruberosu)].Additionally, the claim that 'Keroberos' is the most recognized spelling due to the results of a search engine holds little water. The same test using a different search engine (Ask.com) showed 'Cerberus as the most common spelling with Cerberus "Cardcaptor Sakura" getting 1,250 hits versus Keroberos "Cardcaptor Sakura"with only 856, and Kerberos "Cardcaptor Sakura" with 543. 3loodlust (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. Came home and checked and the new printings of the first half of the manga do indeed use Cerberus (and Kero-chan), however, the anime still uses Keroberos and the first printings also use Keroberos. So the question then becomes, do we go with what is used in the new printings, or what is used in the anime and the original printings and the more popularly used? (And Ask.com is not a real search engine while Google hits are considered an informal indicator of popularity). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only source I can find that uses Keroberos is the Geneon DVDs (although I've not checked the second movie as I'm not sure when or if his name is used). Cannot give screenshots as for whatever reason subtitles are no longer coming being included in PowerDVD caps. The original Tokyopop manga actually uses Kerberos, at least in the edition I have. The bilingual manga published by Kodansha International uses Cerberus, as does Tokyopop's later Master of the Clow manga (I never bought their "100% authentic" re-release of the first half of the series since I already had the bilinguals, but those stopped at volume 6). The official anime fanbook published in Japan by Kodansha also uses Cerberus. Shiroi Hane (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thats quite useful :) Are those bilingual ones part of Kodansha's series for helping folks in Japan learn English? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneon's DVD's use "Kerberos" throughout the subtitled version of Cardcaptor Sakura. "Keroberos" is only used in the Cardcaptors dub material. --EmperorBrandon (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of it from the from the Geneon DVD's (this is from the first episode of the subtitled version) of "Kerberos": [1] --EmperorBrandon (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah cool. Its been awhile since I've watched, so was misremembering. Guess that's a good excuse for a rewatch. ;-) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear then that the only version using the "Keroberos" spelling is in fact the much maligned Cardcaptors. Shiroi Hane (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the evidence? I say we use Cerberus. The other name is confirmed Engrish. Also worth mentioning that if you search for those same terms mentioned above, on Google, but with Card Captor Sakura instead of Cardcaptor Sakura, you get 28k hits for the Cerburus variant and only about 6k for Keroberos. --erachima talk 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The "100% authentic" release calls him 'Cerberus'. Also, I'm so sorry that I didn't think of this before, but the Japanese manga also uses 'Cerberus' (or at least my edition does). It's written on the small sidebar profile located on page 14 of volume 8. At the top his name is spelled in katakana, but at the bottom, under a picture of him it reads 'Cerberus'. I think I agree with erachima, 'Cerberus' seems to be the better spelling.3loodlust (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then. So, should we, at least, actually have Keroberos redirecting to Cerberus, for those who have only seen the anime? :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

3loodlust: I actually took a picture of that from the bilingual release, but didn't include it as I already had a sample from that version. I didn't realise that bit of text was the same in the Japanese version. AnmaFinotera: I believe those books are for Japanese learning English, yes. I also have the first two volumes of Chobits in bilingual. Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, now that we have all these references for the spelling...how about adding some of them to the Cerberus article (in the proper format, of course, not the links to the images)? :PAnmaFinotera (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the books here so might be a bit difficult and I'm on lates but I'll see what I can do. Shiroi Hane (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest we go about that, AnmaFinotera. We have more sources of different spellings here then are currently mentioned in the article. Do you think adding all of them might be too messy, or should we go ahead and mention all of the above? 3loodlust (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every last one :) One or two per name would be fine, though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we've agreed it should be Cerberus, anyone want to help with fixing the names in the various CCS articles? Being consistent throughout would be a good thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Source of info

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E7D71238F933A15752C0A9649C8B63

Found this while looking for some other stuff. Has some good info about the changes between CCS and CC. Noting here incase I forget the link. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged NPOV

My removal of the NPOV marker seems to be one that isn't being understood. First I admit that I myself am against the dub, mainly on the grounds that it was a hackjob that was changed to suit the sexist needs of a company that in their own words said that the reason they edited it was because "girls don't buy as much merchandise as boys," so they decided to remove all the character development and romance aspects and focus mainly on the action to attract boys to watching it.

The dub lacked any real plot, mainly due to the fact that they wiped out most of it. If we were to focus on the dub, 3/4ths of the article would be gone. I am all for linking the dub's article through the page, but to say we should focus more on a version that was so edited that adding it to the article would cause confusion. We'd have to remove almost everything as it would go against the dub's story, and I'm not for that. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting your bias, and I'm not saying I like the dub either. But you seem to have a very bad misunderstanding of what the tag means and how it should be fixed. The NPOV tag does not mean that the article must focus on the dub, and why you would think that is is beyond me. As per the MoS, the article's primary focus is the original work, the manga, not the anime. The anime is second. The dubbed, edited version, comes third. It does, however, mean this article must not display such obvious bias against the dub, and that the dubbed version should be properly covered here. This means not shoving off details to some other place to pretend they don't exist. Please see Tokyo Mew Mew, along with its related episode and character lists to see what I mean. Tokyo Mew Mew was also heavily edited by 4Kids, but that does not mean the article does not provide proper coverage of its Mew Mew Power dub. The dub is properly discussed in the main article, and changes to major character aspects are properly sourced and noted in the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be the one with the misunderstanding. NPOV means that the article is showing signs of favour towards how we feel, rather than what is actually true. NPOV would be me saying "Cardcaptor Sakura is the best anime of all time." If I were to state that, of course it would be NPOV, as not everyone views it that way. It would be a point of view that is my own, not a neutral one that everyone can agree on. I don't see anywhere in this article that this is happening. You then stated it was because of being biased against the dub. Like I said before, the dub lacked a lot of plot, mostly from it being edited out.

According to MOS-AM, we are to use the names that the characters are most identified as. "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)." Just because the Tokyo Mew Mew article chose to focus on both the original and dub names doesn't mean every article has to contain focus on the dub's names.

What exactly do you wish to change in this article to focus on the dub that wouldn't contradict the whole article? AjaaniSherisu (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

N, I didn't misunderstand. The biased against Cardcaptors is heavily evident in the article. That's biased. Whether you like the changes that were made are irrelevant. You are also very badly misreading the MoS and again my statements. The naming conventions regards the name they will be referred to and that their articles will follow. It does not mean that we pretend they weren't renamed in the dub version or that they may have other names. If we followed your interpretation, the Japanese names wouldn't be listed either. No one is saying "focus on the dub names" but that doesn't mean they should be completely ignored either. The entire article needs to rewritten to actually comply with the MoS and the merges it is already tagged for done, including the merging back in of the Cardcaptors article. This will be done eventually, similar to what has already been accomplished with Tokyo Mew Mew. And yes, all articles where a series was dubbed and characters renamed should mention those renames. You may hate the idea, but that is part of actually being comprehensive and neutral. Ignoring them or trying to hide it away is part of the bias displayed here. Additional lack of neutrality comes from the article focusing almost entirely on the anime, when, per the MoS, it should focus on the primary work first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your only point at it being biased against the dub is that it doesn't mention the names of the dubbed characters? If so, then the article isn't biased against the dub, as if you look at the character pages you can clearly see that the dub names are mentioned as are the person who voiced the character in the dub.

Also please show me where in MOS-AM that it states the manga is to be mentioned most of all. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, you are continuing to completely ignore or misread what I've written. The lack of mentioning of the dub characters is irrelevant here. Its the obvious dislike and hatred for the dub anywhere it is mentioned in the article. As for your section, try reading the MoS yet again. It notes, numerous times, that the original work should be the focus of the article. The original work is the manga. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Article 'introductions' should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." I quoted the important aspect you failed to notice. The article mentions the manga first and then goes on to talk about the anime. Nowhere does it state that the article should be primarily about the original work, just that it should be introduced as whatever medium the original work was in. I also do not see anywhere in this article that the article shows a "dislike and hatred" for the dub whenever it is mentioned. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, read the WHOLE MoS, not just part, and read for context. It is the project consensus that articles should be about the primary work first, adaptations later. The plot section notes that differences in the adaptation should come in a subsection, and that the plot should be the primary work's plot. Production first talks about the original work. The Media section puts the original work first, then adaptations. I've left a note on the project page concerning this discussion to request additional points of views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered me on how the article shows "dislike and hatred" for the dub whenever it is mentioned. Nowhere in the whole MOS-AM does it state that a certain medium's information should be spoken about more than others. It does state that "This section can include, as appropriate, separate subsections for information on the original version of the work, as well as any related anime series/OVAs, manga, novels, movies, video games, and other media (such as soundtracks and drama CDs). These sections should, in general, include the original release / broadcast information (as applicable), and English license and release / broadcast information (again, as applicable)." If the MOS-AM really contains what you are saying, please copy and paste the exact words that state it.

The article mentions right in the beginning who created it, what company published it and what magazine it was serialized in as per the Production portion of MOS-AM. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, read the whole MoS and read for context. Read the MoS talk page and the project talk page. It has been discussed recently enough and ad nauseum. See also Elfen Lied a recently delisted GA, during which it was also noted that it lacked neutrality in focusing on the editors' preferred version of the series, the anime, instead of the primary work, the manga. It is the project consensus that it is how articles are supposed to be. If you can not see it without it saying it word for word, there really isn't much else I can say. I realize you aren't very experienced in anime and manga articles, but this whole argument is getting ludicrous. See also Elfen Lied a recently delisted GA, delisted in part because it lacks neutrality in focusing on the anime over the manga. Suffice to say, the article is in hideous shape and will be fixed to comply with the MoS and the established project consensus for series articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what do you propose we do? I mean in regards to making the article more focused on the manga. I still don't agree with you that the article is biased against the dub though, nor did the article pretend there were no name changes. The only reason the dub names aren't mentioned in the main portion of the article is due to the fact that MOS-AM states to use the name most well-known, which the original names are. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started a to do list for the article, but I've put off starting the actual work until I finish with Tokyo Mew Mew. The first things to do are rewrite each section to be more in-line with Wikipedia's prose preferences (i.e. professional prose), add reliable sources, add missing information, and do the merges. After that, try to add in the missing production and reception information. I believe the manga has some production notes, so I'll turn there, as well as check various printed anime/manga guides, and the usual refs (ICv2, ANN, AoD). The episode lists all need a lot of work as well, but will start with the main, and need to get a chapter list going. TMM is currently going through PR and copy editing for some last minute tweaking before we make an FA run. Its character list is also being finished up for PR, after which we'll go for FL. :) When those hit their noms, I will have more time to work on this page, though I'll try to start working on them soon to do some of the initial work. CCS is one of several series I think can easily be taken up to FA with some work to clean it all up, and maybe FT once the sub articles are cleaned up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to go into depth on Cardcaptors here as it has its own article - any differences from the original work should be stated there, not here. If you get started on this need any specific references drop a message on my talk page as I have a few books. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the issue (and Cardcaptors will be merged back here as part of the article's overall clean up). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

'Characters and Cards' Section

I was just looking over the page, and noticed this section listing off all of the cards. Is this list really necessary? The cards have their own page; they don't need to be listed off here too, and to have a long list like this really detracts from the rest of the page in which each section is moderately well organized and presents a definite purpose. I suggest this section either be revised so that it serves a useful purpose, or else be deleted altogether. -3loodlust (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that each of the cards have their own page and that the list isn't necessary, yet it seems as if all the card pages and the clow cards are now all being redirected back to this main article? It might just be me, but I can't find a list of them or any of the card pages anymore. 24.186.53.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

No one said the cards have their own page; because the cards were never notable. There was a list of all the clow cards, however the list was nothing but a repeat of all the plot summary from the episode/chapter lists along with some WP:OR. As such it was deleted via AfD and redirected back here because it is unnotable and excessive fictional detail. What is necessary to know about the cards is already adequately covered in their roles in the chapter and episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose when I first recommended this section deletion, I mentioned the then-existent list; I'm sure that's what started all this. I must agree, however, that such a page was unnecessary as the cards are hardly a broad or important enough topic to allow for an entire page describing them. As AnmaFinotera said, most of the information on that list was already in the episode/chapter lists. Though it might be possible to add a paragraph or so on the cards--not a list of them, but perhaps some basic information such as their organizational structure (ie. Light and Dark are the most closely connected to Yue and Cerberus, attack cards are more powerful than docile ones, etc.), and perhaps even mention some of their reproductions, on the main page. I'm sure I could find citable information if anyone really wants the cards included, but an entire page devoted to the cards just isn’t pratical. -3loodlust (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The cards used to have their own page, but that page is now gone. However, the information on that page was not included in this page, and this page still has multiple links to the deleted page. There is now no listing of the cards anywhere on the site. Could somebody please restore the old page, at least until the core information from it (the names of the cards) is incorporated into this page? Removing information from Wikipedia altogether is frowned upon, I believe... 76.10.156.151 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No as there is nothing from that page that needs to be incorporated here at all. The list of card names is trivial and irrelevant to the main page. As has already been noted, noting a card was captured goes in the episode and chapter summaries only. Meanwhile, I will go back and make sure the links have been removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Nice job with the clean-up, AnmaFinotera, the 'plot' section now moves in a much more logical order, and certainly its nice to have an addition of information that's not in-universe for once. It still needs some work (with which i hope I can be more useful than I've been as of late), but this is a major improvement. I think there may be a few spots in need of revision, though. The most obvious of which is in paragraph 6 of the plot summary where it says that the only cards wafting to be changed were Light and Dark. After Eriol reveals himself, he also battles Sakura to force her to transform the Shield and Watery cards as well before she transforms the last pair. Also, there's something about the description of Cerberus and Yue's power at the end of the third paragraph of the plot that seems slightly off. I don't believe that Yue draws all of his power from Sakura, but merely needs her support in addition to the power he draws from the moon. I may well be in error, however; I'll check my translations to be sure, and I'll look up the final transformations in the manga to be certain there as well before I make any corrections. :) -3loodlust (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote all of it from memory, so need to reread as well to correct any error in memory (or me confusing manga and anime). I plan to do that anyway to work on the chapter list after I finish some of the other stuff I'm working on (getting spread to thin), as well as finishing redoing the other sections to get them in proper shape with like actual references and all *grin* Also need to work on getting a production section and a real reception section rather than one uncited line we have now. :-P BTW, you changed the manga card count from 18 to 19. Do you have a source for that? I did a list from the manga awhile back and it was 18:

1. Windy
2. Wood
3. Jump
4. Fly
5. Watery
6. Illusion
7. Flower
8. Sword
9. Shadow
10. Mirror
11. Shield
12. Maze
13. Erase
14. Glow
15. Dark
16. Light
17. Firey
18. Earthy

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked over everything, and as it turns out Cerberus's comment about his and Yue's power isn't quite what either of us thought. He says that his power is enough on its own; it replenishes itself without needing any extra help, but Yue needs someone else to help support him in order to generate the same power. It's not so much that either of them draw power from the sun or moon, but that both of them are like their celestial affiliation in that Cerberus can generate his own energies, but Yue needs an amount of someone else's power first before he generate energies to sustain himself. The cards are thankfully much easier. There are 19, the 19th is 'Thunder', though I couldn't count them all off the top my head either. The reason I knew there was 19 was that Sakura says so in the second chapter of volume 11. -3loodlust (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think its in the anime that Cerberus says they draw their power from the sun/moon (but also needs checking). Oh....DUH on Thunder. Big lightening dog :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll tweak it a bit so works better. I thought there was some other connection to the sun and moon too, but it apparently doesn't play a part here. -3loodlust (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging the audio

Hi,

I'm willing to do the merging of the audio part. Now the question is the modalities of that merge.
For the formating proposing to do it in a condensed way, killing the tracks lists and the albums infobox in the process.
For references i'm proposing a 3 references-fuu : 1 to prove existence & release date, 1 to prove the chart peak rank & 1 to prove content/details like lyrics writer, music score writer or arrangement maker.
The consequence is an explosion of the number of references/sources. My last count was around 60.
For sub-section i'm proposing the fellowing one :

• Season one albums & singles (2 albums + 2 singles)
  
• Season two album & singles (1 albums + 2 singles)
  
• Season three album & singles (1 albums + 2 singles)
  
• Movies albums & singles (3 albums + 2 singles)
  
• Vocal albums & singles (3 albums + 6 singles)
  
• Drama albums (2 albums)
  

Feel free to give your opinion, we are not in hurry.KrebMarkt 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on track lists and infoboxes being axed. I'm not sure if subsections are needed, but will wait to see how it looks when done. 60 refs? Yay! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Few things, you can have a look on how i wish to handle it CardCaptor Audio section draft. I haven't finished it yet and you already know that English isn't my native language so don't whack me to hard ;)

Thanks to the showers of references we have plenty of information But a limited frame as there are concerns on readability, clarity and overall balance of the final article to take account.

I list here the various informations that must or can be integrated in the final version :

• Names & Release Date : Mandatory
• Oricon peak rank : Mandatory when available
• Performers : Mandatory for singles.
• Number of tracks : optional album only
• Disc length : optional (pointless IMO)
• Catalog Number : optional
• Lyrics : optional/mandatory
• Writing & Arrangement : optional

My big personal issue is to balance the quantity of prose and the quantity of references. KrebMarkt 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick scanning, my first note would be to make sure to use m d, y for date, not d m, y :-) Other than that, so far its looking quite nice. Will probably tweak the headers later, but that's a minor thing. You know...I just realized the article is totally missing info on the films beyond a note in the plot section! I'll try to fix that this weekend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. For the dates, i will stick with the rest of the article m d, y but d m y can also work in other article per MoS Date. The essential is to have the same way to put a date in the article. KrebMarkt 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but md, y is the preferred date format for WP:ANIME - have a look at this discussion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft done : CardCaptor Audio section draft

The most painful part are the first movie album with Chinese track titles, The insane long album title Christmas Concert by the Choir of Tomoeda Elementary School and the drama albums that i could develop more but refrained due to size matter KrebMarkt 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid revision 270424562

My keybord lapsed when i was wrinting why i undid rev 270424562
Ext link to COPYVIO content & a try to get around the image fair use limitation of the characters list.
--KrebMarkt 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

new series

I've heard from people that a new tv series will be released soon in the future. If this is true then why not add a section of speculation? Mostly blogs have been at it. Could we do add it? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Write nothing that was not relayed by Reliable sources most likely ANN in that case. Speculations don't suit well with something that want to be encyclopedic :( So if any Reliable Sources assert those rumors, it will be very carefully added to the media->anime sub-section. --KrebMarkt 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as it is nothing but rumors (and very likely pure wishing if anything). If it isn't noted by actual reliable sources, its not anything to mention anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags

There have been tags on this page for quite some time but no discussion has been brought up about how to fix them. Perhaps we should start by discussing the reasons for why such tags are in place. I believe we should remove the reference and intro tags as there are plenty of references on the page and the intro seems to follow the guidelines. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is not required when basic tags are put on an article. As for why the tags are in place, no there are not enough references, not by a long shot. There are only 11, most of which just reference specific item releases. The intro is not following current guidelines, per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS-AM. The neutrality's tag addition was discussed, but it may be in the archives now. The clean up is do to numerous MoS issues. See also the big to do box at the top of this page, which spells out some of the work needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page." It doesn't matter whether or not the tags are basic, it's common sense to discuss problems with the article in order to fix them as people aren't mind readers. I added some more references to the games but this article is pretty small compared to many others so there is a reason the lower amount of references than normal. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)